If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High wing vs low wing
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again. I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when you wish to look straight down. I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but their other limitations just won't work for me. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
No such thing as "better" unless you define it. As you know, high-wings have
better air-ground visibility, and low-wings better air-air. Many low-wings' visibilities aren't too bad from the front seat. Low wings will have a bit more ground-effect than high wings, but aren't as happy in grass strips. If the low-wing you are getting is Cherokee-flavored, the biggest difference you'll notice between it and the C152 is the wing airfoil characteristics. Doesn't glide as well as the Cessna, but in-flight and stalls much more benign. As usual, "it depends..." -Cory temp wrote: : I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so : here you go again. : I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always : crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been : in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on : the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a : Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was : a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when : you wish to look straight down. : I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally : better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but : their other limitations just won't work for me. -- ************************************************** *********************** * The prime directive of Linux: * * - learn what you don't know, * * - teach what you do. * * (Just my 20 USm$) * ************************************************** *********************** |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not sure what you're planning to buy. The Cherokees don't glide well
but one thing I like about them in a high density airport is just that: you can arrive well above the commercial glide slope and do the crowbar descent and avoid mixing with wake turbulence. But it's a matter of what fits your flying style. At uncontrolled airports, you want to enter the pattern low to increase the chances that unannounced high wing traffic will be above you. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
temp wrote: I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. You want consensus from usenet????? Neither is "generally better". Each has advantages and disadvantages. It's just like politics - pick your favorite complaint and vote for the other one. George Patterson None of us is as dumb as all of us. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"temp" wrote in message
... I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so here you go again. I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when you wish to look straight down. I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but their other limitations just won't work for me. I own a Cherokee 180 and am in a flying club with 2 Cessna's. For 90% of my flying, I like the low wing. I can generally see the ground just fine. For aerial photography, I use the high-wings. I guess I've got the best of both worlds. True, the hershey bar wings don't glide that well, but when I hit the power, all it wants to do is climb. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
temp wrote:
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so here you go again. I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when you wish to look straight down. I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but their other limitations just won't work for me. Most low-wings are harder to get into and out of than low-wings, because they usually only have one door (on the passenger side). Of course this doesn't apply to all of them, but it sure does for most piper and Beechcraft low wings (some musketeers have pilot-side doors, but not all of them). It's not a picnic to get into the passenger side either if you aren't pretty fit and flexible. Lots more climbing and stepping over or down into. When I take my father flying, he really struggles to get into and out of the cherokee, and since I have to be in before him (since there is no door on the pilot's side) I can't help very much. I fly low-wings because that's what my flying club has, but if I had my druthers I'd still be flying 172's. YMMV, MHO, etc. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"temp" wrote in message ...
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so here you go again. I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when you wish to look straight down. I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but their other limitations just won't work for me. This subject...again!!?? Gotta be a troll. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
temp wrote:
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so here you go again. I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when you wish to look straight down. I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but their other limitations just won't work for me. I have owned and flown Piper 140s and 180s. I have also owned a C172 and was a partner in a C182. For the last 16 years I have owned a 1974 C177B (Cardinal). The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary. No struts to obscure down or side. Great for photos (especially if you have a photo window). And because the wing is farther aft on the fuselage than other Cessnas, the upward visibility is virtually unobstructed. Now for the bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a cabin class twin that is easier to get into and out of than a Cardinal. Low to the ground. Big wide doors. Too bad it doesn't go just a little faster and carry just a little more weight. Oh well... Rick Graves - N34759 - 1974 C177B |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
temp wrote:
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so here you go again. You ain't kidding... A google groups search for " high low wing group:rec.aviation.* " returned 13,800 hits. Read all of them and then come back if you still have questions. MikeM |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I have only about 360 hours, most in 152 & 172s. About 10 in 182, about 12 in
Warrior. My favorite is the Cessna 177 Cardinal. You sit forward in front of the wing and have better vis in the turns, no strut, no obstruction looking down. I wish I had my own! Heck, I wish I had any bird of my own. My problem is I have a taste for an Arrow or 182 and a budget for a run out old 150 project with no radios.....ah well.... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 07:28 PM |
High Wing or Low Wing | Bob Babcock | Home Built | 17 | January 23rd 04 01:34 AM |
End of High wing low wing search for me | dan | Home Built | 7 | January 11th 04 10:57 AM |
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping | Wright1902Glider | Home Built | 0 | September 29th 03 03:40 PM |
Wing Extensions | Jay | Home Built | 22 | July 27th 03 12:23 PM |